Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Swamp_Thing on March 21, 2005, 08:14:29 pm
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7259823/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7259823/)
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
:lol:
...Oh wait, Wrong Smiley.
:wtf:
-
Actually, this would be Colombine part 5 or 6.
-
Damn lousy idiot kids.
-
Notice it's only, or at least, almost always, boys doing this? I don't see girls going off on rampages like this.
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Notice it's only, or at least, almost always, boys doing this? I don't see girls going off on rampages like this.
Uh ohhhhh...
/me waits for the flaming
-
Part way too many.
:nono:
-
I wonder how long it will take before the fingers are pointed at the usual suspects (i.e. videogames, movies, TV, music)?
I'm just glad this didn't effect anyone I know.
-
damn it, they really need to teach theese kids to use explosives. i want a bigger bodycout next time.
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Notice it's only, or at least, almost always, boys doing this? I don't see girls going off on rampages like this.
It's not that time of the month yet.....
And on a serious note; guns, eh? Must be really essential for the security of a nation when a 15-17 year old can get hold of not one, not two, but three..... of course, we banned them immediately after our first incident like this (Dublane), but then we're just knee-jerk reactionaries over the pond.
-
Originally posted by Dough with Fish
I wonder how long it will take before the fingers are pointed at the usual suspects (i.e. videogames, movies, TV, music)?
The bodies weren´t even cold yet, when they immediatelly pointed out violent games as an explanation. It´s never bad parenting, or violence and gun culture, or the gun laws, for some weird reason. Video games make for a convenient escape goat, don´t they?
:rolleyes:
@Aldo_14:
Apparently the guns were his father´s or his grandfather´s, who was a retired cop or something. 2 handguns and a shotgun. But you are dead right anyway. Guns are sold quicker to kids than cigarettes or a six pack of beer. It´s mind boggling how a teenager is allowed to purchase a certified killing instrument years before he is even allowed in a bar. Although this particular kid did not used guns he bought himself, there are countless examples of that happening.
Parents leaving their firearms just lying around, within reach of their children, should be imprisioned for at least 2 years. Then maybe they would start paying attention to what they are doing, and start being responsible for their ineptitude as parents.
In this case however, the parents suffered similar fate, as they were killed first, before he went on and panted the school walls with led paint...
:doubt: :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Apparently the guns were his father´s or his grandfather´s, who was a retired cop or something. 2 handguns and a shotgun. But you are dead right anyway. Guns are sold quicker to kids than cigarettes or a six pack of beer. It´s mind boggling how a teenager is allowed to purchase a certified killing instrument years before he is even allowed in a bar. Although this particular kid did not used guns he bought himself, there are countless examples of that happening.
Parents leaving their firearms just lying around, within reach of their children, should be imprisioned for at least 2 years. Then maybe they would start paying attention to what they are doing, and start being responsible for their ineptitude as parents.
In this case however, the parents suffered similar fate, as they were killed first, before he went on and panted the school walls with led paint...
:doubt: :doubt:
That's what i mean, though - why did his parents need 2 handguns and a shotgun? Why that many? I know the guy was a police officer (the grandparent...doesn't say how old he is, so don't know if still serving), but that raises more questions - was it is service firearms? Why weren't they secured, in that case? Or why/how did the kid have access, if they were in fact secured?
And I can't help but wonder about the ammunition.... i.e. what type / caliber / lethality was it? And was that level of lethality necessary in what is usually justified to be a crime deterrent weapon?
No doubt someone will point out how this could have been avoided if the guns were properly secured, etc.... and it's a fair point, but this could just as easily (probably more so) be avoided by not having the guns in the first place.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Why weren't they secured, in that case? Or why/how did the kid have access, if they were in fact secured?
And I can't help but wonder about the ammunition.... i.e. what type / caliber / lethality was it? And was that level of lethality necessary in what is usually justified to be a crime deterrent weapon?
My father owns a pump shotgun, a revolver and an alarm pistol (wich he gave me to keep in my room), for years. And even i haven´t even seen them yet, allthough i´m 31 years old and he knows he can trust me with them. My father just doesn´t feel confortable knowing the guns are within reach, so he keeps them under lock and key, because there are kids in the house. And he never keeps the ammo in the same place as the guns. Alas it seems that most people are not so cautious with their weapons.
In this incident, the weapons used weren´t the most lethal around. A shotgun is probably the most commonly used weapon in the states. We´ve seen much worst, like Uzis, Mac-10s, and other nasties, in the hands of kids. While i might understand why someone might keep a shotgun or a handgun in the house, ownership of a machine gun is nothing short of lunacy.
I´m not saying the US should ban ALL weapons, but anything bigger than a shotgun should be reserved only for military and police use. Not that it would have made any diference in this case, but atleast some other shootings could have been avoided, and if not avoided, at least decreased in severity.
Sadlly, this incident won´t serve a damn thing, as no politician dares touch the subject. Even if the gun control discussion is spiked by this new incident, it won´t be long before the public outrage dies down and the issue is placed on ice untill the next killing spree occurrs. Then we´ll see another few weeks of heated discussion, and the process repeats itself...
Untill someone with balls and brains sits in the White House, we will never see the end of this.
-
Are you saying an M-60 isn't a valid hunting rifle? *shock* Mmm....mince
:D
Thing is, though, if you keep a weapon safely locked up in a responsible way, aren't you also removing it's accesibility as a form of self defence? And if you don't lock it up, then surely you increase the risk of it being used by a kid, or even stolen itself?
Regadless, I can't see any reason atall for allowing people to have 'heavy' weaponry such as assault rifles or smgs, etc.
(In case it's not obvious already, I'm fimrly against any private ownership of guns; IMO guns are designed purposely to kill or maim, so why make them so easily available?)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Are you saying an M-60 isn't a valid hunting rifle? *shock* Mmm....mince
:D
Not if you want to retain some meat in the bones of your prey, after you shoot it.
:p
Thing is, though, if you keep a weapon safely locked up in a responsible way, aren't you also removing it's accesibility as a form of self defence?[/B]
Not necessarilly. You can lock your guns in a gun cabinet, or even your dresser. The time needed to open the secure cabinet is the practically same you take getting it from anywhere else. Also, if you are faced with any situation where you don´t have those extra 2 seconds to spare, chances are your actions won´t matter anyway, and might even jeopardize your safety because of it.
Besides, the idea is keeping the guns locked away when you are not home, but your children are. You can unlock them at night, when you are home. Most situations where you would need a gun to protect yourself happen at night anyway. And by contrast, most guns are taken from home by children during the day, when parents aren´t home to watch over them.
-
I'm not sure about that 2 seconds part; at least by the (pre-ban) Uk standards, where you had to keep guns in a metal locked safe. I have to admit, I find the idea of unlocking the gun for the night, somewhat disturbing, because the whole gun thing is somewhat unnerving to me.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
The bodies weren´t even cold yet, when they immediatelly pointed out violent games as an explanation. It´s never bad parenting, or violence and gun culture, or the gun laws, for some weird reason. Video games make for a convenient escape goat, don´t they?
:rolleyes:
How about instead blaming the fact that the kid was a known neo-nazi who had previously made death threats but yet no one thought that maybe it was a bad idea for him to have access to guns.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
How about instead blaming the fact that the kid was a known neo-nazi who had previously made death threats but yet no one thought that maybe it was a bad idea for him to have access to guns.
But GTA obviously made him a neo-nazi and his mental instability etc. has nothing to do with it! I mean, did we ever have lunatics before computer games? I THINK NOT
-
Reminds me of that article in a news magazine I read just today, about that 15-year-old guy who killed his grandparents when he was 12. With his very own pump-gun. :wtf:
-
according to the current UK rules a firearm has to be kept in a locked weapon cabinet with the bolt and ammunition securely storerd in seperate places from the weapon.
Thats gonna take a lot more than 2 seconds to put back together.
Anyway, I have never understood what you need assualt style weapons and pistols for? I mean its not exactly as if anyone is going to try invading the US... The only thing they can be used for is crime. Your not going to use an automatic weapon for target shooting.
-
Originally posted by Freyr
according to the current UK rules a firearm has to be kept in a locked weapon cabinet with the bolt and ammunition securely storerd in seperate places from the weapon.
Thats gonna take a lot more than 2 seconds to put back together.
Anyway, I have never understood what you need assualt style weapons and pistols for? I mean its not exactly as if anyone is going to try invading the US... The only thing they can be used for is crime. Your not going to use an automatic weapon for target shooting.
The origins of the gun-laws come from 2nd Amendment. It's basically a basis for state militia [all men, trained in arms yadda yadda yadda], purpose being 1) deterring any invaders and 2) forming the backbone of people's revolution and all that jazz, and of course the self-defence. It's a part of the checks and balances stuff they have - if the ruler of the country is bat**** insane, they can overthrow him with their mighty AR-15s and dynamite sticks. It's not just for the hunting and defending yourself from those vile brute Indians, the original purpose was pretty good.
Whether that is any useful is now a big debate point. Those who wish to tighten the anti-gun laws sometimes hilariously say that "well. the governmental forces would be equipped with tanks and artillery and Apaches and B-2s and Project Pluto, nothing you can do so we better scrap it alltogether", and also understandably point out to bazillion shooting incidents. Pro-gun people the counterargue that "what good is second amendment if you can only shoot rabbits and not the King of England", and flamewars follow.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Parents leaving their firearms just lying around, within reach of their children, should be imprisioned for at least 2 years. Then maybe they would start paying attention to what they are doing, and start being responsible for their ineptitude as parents.
:yes:
Aldo, as a comment to your remarks, I'd like to bring up the Israeli example: guns are not only publicly available to bearers of a proper liscence, but they are often toted around in public. Yet despite ready availability of weapons to disgruntled teenagers (or whatever), there is virtually no Columbine-like incidents here.
Now, I haven't done any studies, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the saftey education, the respect for lethal weaponry, that nearly every citizen here aquires when going through his or her army service, is responsible for both the proper and secure storage of weaponry, and/or the passing on of the proper respect of weaponry to the children of people who own guns.
-
Show me a gun which isn't intended to kill or injure people (and indeed can't do so in normal use)*, or a society so weak as to need everyone to own weapons, and I'll support private ownership of firearms.
Otherwise IMHO the best case scenario (I dunno...lets say Switzerland), is still more dangerous than the no-guns one.
*i.e. water pistols are fine by me
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Show me a gun which isn't intended to kill or injure people (and indeed can't do so in normal use)*, or a society so weak as to need everyone to own weapons, and I'll support private ownership of firearms.
Otherwise IMHO the best case scenario (I dunno...lets say Switzerland), is still more dangerous than the no-guns one.
*i.e. water pistols are fine by me
I don't want guns to be weak or non-lethal. You know those micro-wave riot control weapons, right? Well, they still cause pretty immense pain and can be downright dangerous - but because they don't kill, using them just for ****s and giggles is waaaay easier than using rubber bullets, not even to speak of true live ammo. "Hey he seems dangerous let's just cause him a lot of pain because, you know, he won't die! hahahahahahaha" [I have little faith in human beings.] It could be easy, simple and riskless to the one using a gun, with little legal repercussions.
As for guns that aren't intended or able to kill people, well... uhh. A rock can kill people (or quite a bit of major lifeforms in a planet if it's large enough :V )
Gun's a tool, a multipurpose tool to be exact. It's original use was to kill things, and that's the role where it is used (and sharpshooting, and skeet, and just gatherer's hobby etc.) Nowadays we have guns to shoot people with (military weaponry), guns to shoot animals with (.22 rifles, elk rifles, shotguns, even some handguns) and guns that can be easily used in both roles (most of them).
I don't really personally go well with the "gun is intended to kill people, so all of them should be illegal" mindset. I am about to get my hunter's licence some day and shoot rabbits. I don't feel safe with fully-automatic guns all around me, but nevertheless I served my year in the defence forces. I feel really unsafe if mentally ill people are given access to weaponry, anyways. What I personally think is that gun is a tool and the owner, and owner alone, is responsibly for it. If the owner cannot be responsible or has a high risk of just flipping out, then no guns for you kthxbye
-
Originally posted by Janos
I don't want guns to be weak or non-lethal. You know those micro-wave riot control weapons, right? Well, they still cause pretty immense pain and can be downright dangerous - but because they don't kill, using them just for ****s and giggles is waaaay easier than using rubber bullets, not even to speak of true live ammo. "Hey he seems dangerous let's just cause him a lot of pain because, you know, he won't die! hahahahahahaha" [I have little faith in human beings.] It could be easy, simple and riskless to the one using a gun, with little legal repercussions.
As for guns that aren't intended or able to kill people, well... uhh. A rock can kill people (or quite a bit of major lifeforms in a planet if it's large enough :V )
That's why I added the caveat of 'normal use'. Obviously, anything can kill or injure if used in a certain way, but not all things are designed to do so as guns are.
You could also extend that to so-called pain weapons; you could construe them as injurious due to both potential physical and psychological effects. Use of them would probably also be illegal anyways under existing laws against assault, etc (specifically torture, although I'm not sure if there is specific legislation).
I would view it as highly unlikely that devices capable of controlled torturous pain (i.e. oppossed to the likes of mace) would be permitted under law - it would simply be under a different law as to one controlling guns.
Originally posted by Janos
Gun's a tool, a multipurpose tool to be exact. It's original use was to kill things, and that's the role where it is used (and sharpshooting, and skeet, and just gatherer's hobby etc.)
That's my point exactly. Why do we need a device purposely designed to kill anything, for private use? (note that I would not define the likes of pest control, essential cullls, etc, under private use). There's not really much use for a gun beyond killing / crippling I can think of that could not be better performed by another tool not designed too kill.
Originally posted by Janos
Nowadays we have guns to shoot people with (military weaponry), guns to shoot animals with (.22 rifles, elk rifles, shotguns, even some handguns) and guns that can be easily used in both roles (most of them).
I don't really personally go well with the "gun is intended to kill people, so all of them should be illegal" mindset. I am about to get my hunter's licence some day and shoot rabbits. I don't feel safe with fully-automatic guns all around me, but nevertheless I served my year in the defence forces. I feel really unsafe if mentally ill people are given access to weaponry, anyways. What I personally think is that gun is a tool and the owner, and owner alone, is responsibly for it. If the owner cannot be responsible or has a high risk of just flipping out, then no guns for you kthxbye
But you don't need to kill rabbits, do you? And in the question of optionality - allow hunting, etc versus the dangers of gun crime from legally purchased weapons - I'd err on the side of safety. (and if you do need to kill rabbits for food or something, I'm sure there are other ways to do so).
I don't put a lot of trust in the idea that we can just rely on gun owners; firstly, even the best regulated license system is prone to abuse - both Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan managed to buy their guns under legal license, for one thing - and secondly, you guarentee that a 'sane' gun owner will always be so. In the latter case, what do you do - run regular psychiatry checks on the licensee? If so, how can you do so frequently enough in order to ensure the risk level is the same as simply not allowing the weapons to be sold?
Thirdly, there's the argument that any form of legal weapons trade provides a basis for increased shipments into a country, in turn increasing the number potentially available to criminals - whereas banning them means you can solely focus on tracking down any illegal existing shipments; there's a degree of evidence to this in that the UK police have noted that there are more and more cases of the same gun being 'rented' for use across the country. Whilst this is worrying in another way (harder to track individuals based on their weapon), it would imply that there are simply less guns available to buy. Apparently, there are also less criminals carrying concealed guns due to both the level of punishment and the scarcity.
In summary... there is a degree of public safety in completely banning gun ownership, which I believe cannot be matched by any legal (i.e. not draconian or verging into 1984 territory) licensing system, and furthermore I believe that this safety comes at virtually no cost to the public 'good'.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That's why I added the caveat of 'normal use'. Obviously, anything can kill or injure if used in a certain way, but not all things are designed to do so as guns are.
[/b]
Axe. It's designed to kill. It's also standard household thing, with current purpose less on killing and more on chopping things, but I use axe to kill frequently :V
You could also extend that to so-called pain weapons; you could construe them as injurious due to both potential physical and psychological effects. Use of them would probably also be illegal anyways under existing laws against assault, etc (specifically torture, although I'm not sure if there is specific legislation).
I would view it as highly unlikely that devices capable of controlled torturous pain (i.e. oppossed to the likes of mace) would be permitted under law - it would simply be under a different law as to one controlling guns.
Well I don't really like this idea (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1470).
That's my point exactly. Why do we need a device purposely designed to kill anything, for private use? (note that I would not define the likes of pest control, essential cullls, etc, under private use). There's not really much use for a gun beyond killing / crippling I can think of that could not be better performed by another tool not designed too kill.
I don't really think how killing animals over rabbitt size for A) fun and B) food could be done with any other weapon than a gun. You'd need a ridiculous crossbow for such a thing.
But you don't need to kill rabbits, do you? And in the question of optionality - allow hunting, etc versus the dangers of gun crime from legally purchased weapons - I'd err on the side of safety. (and if you do need to kill rabbits for food or something, I'm sure there are other ways to do so).
Sometimes people actually do have to kill rabbits, minks, raccoon dogs, foxes, gulls and stuff like that. It's not very easy to do with something else than a gun. Plus, quite a few people draw pleasure from, if not from killing something, then the actual act of hunting. I hunt with my binoculars and my camera also, but those don't kill minks.
Actually, there's this pretty large city's garden just 300 meters from where I'm writing this from. :) They kill brown hares and introduced there with a crossbow, because they're a goddamn nuisance over here. Apparently the crossbow is for them THE weapon of choice. It's silent (we're in a city), powerful (the target usually just stops dead) and pretty accurate at shorter ranges. Then there's this bunch of enviromentalists who are trying to eradictate every single mink and raccoon dog from the protected areas, and they have to use guns. They say that killing an animal outright is pretty much a must in their job, and no other thing does it as swiftly, painlessly and cost-effectively as a gun (you could drag them to some kind of concentration centers or something, and the prices would skyrocket. ugh). As well as eliminating pest animals.
That's one use of a gun. Basically most (over 90%) of guns where I live are for hunting duties, and we have one of the biggest gun-per-capita ratios (it even rivals many areas of USA). We do have gun accidents and shootouts (drunken husband kills his wife and her lover is the basic story, apprently..) every now and then, but actually most of the time people used guns as a tool of death it was a suicide.
Gun crime, 1995 (latest I found):
Homicides, murders etc, guns: 30
Suicide, gun: 291
Homicides, murders, overall, 1995: 156
Attempted: 376
Suicides: 1388 (jesus christ)
If the gun is not a popular, easily achievable "every household" piece of junk, the amount of crimes where legally purchased guns are involved falls pretty low. In many crimes where gun was used in any way the gun was illegal. I readily admit that this does not apply to USA, where gun is practically a right - here you have to work for it, a lot; you can't just walk into a store, buy a gun and so on - you have to have licences for pretty much everything you could imagine.
I don't put a lot of trust in the idea that we can just rely on gun owners; firstly, even the best regulated license system is prone to abuse - both Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan managed to buy their guns under legal license, for one thing - and secondly, you guarentee that a 'sane' gun owner will always be so. In the latter case, what do you do - run regular psychiatry checks on the licensee? If so, how can you do so frequently enough in order to ensure the risk level is the same as simply not allowing the weapons to be sold?
I pray. No kidding, I am well aware that gun crime is present whereever guns are available. However, as I tend to despise nanny states (I am a socialist too, wtf), I try to give responsibility to people (which is useless, but nonetheless). I also see that whenever gun ownership is strictly controlled, but not banned outright, the crime rate falls down into acceptable levels.
Thirdly, there's the argument that any form of legal weapons trade provides a basis for increased shipments into a country, in turn increasing the number potentially available to criminals - whereas banning them means you can solely focus on tracking down any illegal existing shipments; there's a degree of evidence to this in that the UK police have noted that there are more and more cases of the same gun being 'rented' for use across the country. Whilst this is worrying in another way (harder to track individuals based on their weapon), it would imply that there are simply less guns available to buy. Apparently, there are also less criminals carrying concealed guns due to both the level of punishment and the scarcity.
In summary... there is a degree of public safety in completely banning gun ownership, which I believe cannot be matched by any legal (i.e. not draconian or verging into 1984 territory) licensing system, and furthermore I believe that this safety comes at virtually no cost to the public 'good'. [/B]
I think people's hobbies, enviromental use in both hunting, wandering, pest control etc. and the economic repercussions would be a good reason to allow something potentially dangerous?
-
Originally posted by Janos
Axe. It's designed to kill. It's also standard household thing, with current purpose less on killing and more on chopping things, but I use axe to kill frequently :V
Axe is designed for chopping, though; through firewood in particualr, also of course fire axes. The ability to 'chop' with it makes it dangerous, of course, but in the same way as a bog-standard knife. Different paradigm to guns.
Originally posted by Janos
Well I don't really like this idea (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1470).
I don't think anyone does. It's not suggested this will be sold for private use, though, although the idea of anyone having control over this sort of tech is bad enough. IMO this is the sort of thing that should be banned under human rights / anti-torture law.
Originally posted by Janos
I don't really think how killing animals over rabbitt size for A) fun and B) food could be done with any other weapon than a gun. You'd need a ridiculous crossbow for such a thing.
Tranquilizer dart (you could maybe add gun into this as the delivery system), spike trap, or even the old fashioned spear. Killing of large animals for fun isn't done frequently in most places which would have a system of government for banning guns, IIRC; certainly not in what (IMO) would be construed as 'risk' areas of population density.
In a situation where hunting is necessary for survival purpose, I guess it would be fair to exempt hunting rifles. Not semi-autos, handguns, etc of course.
Originally posted by Janos
Sometimes people actually do have to kill rabbits, minks, raccoon dogs, foxes, gulls and stuff like that. It's not very easy to do with something else than a gun. Plus, quite a few people draw pleasure from, if not from killing something, then the actual act of hunting. I hunt with my binoculars and my camera also, but those don't kill minks.
Poison & traps are usable. Note also that I said you could make an exception for culling or pest control... obviously such scenarios would need to be strictly controlled, regulated and quota-d.
The act of hunting can, as you said, be simulated by binoculars, camera, or even by subsituting a 'fake' gun that calculates 'kills' (in a far-out substitute). Hunting for the sake of killing (for fun), IMO isn't really something that adds a lot to the fabric of society... I don't think we lose much if that goes as a consequence.
Originally posted by Janos
Actually, there's this pretty large city's garden just 300 meters from where I'm writing this from. :) They kill brown hares and introduced there with a crossbow, because they're a goddamn nuisance over here. Apparently the crossbow is for them THE weapon of choice. It's silent (we're in a city), powerful (the target usually just stops dead) and pretty accurate at shorter ranges. Then there's this bunch of enviromentalists who are trying to eradictate every single mink and raccoon dog from the protected areas, and they have to use guns. They say that killing an animal outright is pretty much a must in their job, and no other thing does it as swiftly, painlessly and cost-effectively as a gun (you could drag them to some kind of concentration centers or something, and the prices would skyrocket. ugh). As well as eliminating pest animals.
See before (RE: where necessary for pest control / culling).
Originally posted by Janos
That's one use of a gun. Basically most (over 90%) of guns where I live are for hunting duties, and we have one of the biggest gun-per-capita ratios (it even rivals many areas of USA). We do have gun accidents and shootouts (drunken husband kills his wife and her lover is the basic story, apprently..) every now and then, but actually most of the time people used guns as a tool of death it was a suicide.
Gun crime, 1995 (latest I found):
Homicides, murders etc, guns: 30
Suicide, gun: 291
Homicides, murders, overall, 1995: 156
Attempted: 376
Suicides: 1388 (jesus christ)
If the gun is not a popular, easily achievable "every household" piece of junk, the amount of crimes where legally purchased guns are involved falls pretty low. In many crimes where gun was used in any way the gun was illegal. I readily admit that this does not apply to USA, where gun is practically a right - here you have to work for it, a lot; you can't just walk into a store, buy a gun and so on - you have to have licences for pretty much everything you could imagine.
Well, the suicide issue is another arguement, but the other side is ambiguity over how much more likely a gun makes it, and I'm not sure what studies, etc, have been made into that.
One of the other things I said about guns, is supply; how many legally purchased guns are stolen, for example? Or how many guns are shipped in as legal weapons, but end up re-routed to illegal sellers? i.e. how many illegal guns are actually moved into the (i.e. whatever country) illegally, and how many originate with legitamate sources?
Originally posted by Janos
I pray. No kidding, I am well aware that gun crime is present whereever guns are available. However, as I tend to despise nanny states (I am a socialist too, wtf), I try to give responsibility to people (which is useless, but nonetheless). I also see that whenever gun ownership is strictly controlled, but not banned outright, the crime rate falls down into acceptable levels.
I believe that eradicating guns outright (including moving all that licensing budget into the police to tackle illegal weapons) is a better long term solution than strict licensing, due to the inevitability that somewhere along the line, licensing will fail.
Also that and more guns available in shops = more from ne'er-do-wells to obtain (be it purchase or stealing from owner/shop/enroute to shop).
I don't believe this counts as nanny-statery, any more than seatbelt laws or child-safety caps on bottles do.
Originally posted by Janos
I think people's hobbies, enviromental use in both hunting, wandering, pest control etc. and the economic repercussions would be a good reason to allow something potentially dangerous?
I don't think hunting itself is an environmental use. I'm not sure how beneficial said hobbies are; what gun-related hobbies are there, besides hunting, anyways? (presumably target shooting doesn't count - you can do that with an airgun or paintball gun).
Pest control, culling, etc, are pretty much a state rather than private persons responsibility (simple reason - one person has less information on the scale of a pest or population problem and individuals acting in an uncoordinated manner rarely solve one), so that isn't IMO a factor in the issue of private ownership.
Wandering... I have no idea what you mean by that. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Axe is designed for chopping, though; through firewood in particualr, also of course fire axes. The ability to 'chop' with it makes it dangerous, of course, but in the same way as a bog-standard knife. Different paradigm to guns.
[/b]
First axes were also used to kill. Not that that comment really means anything, but anyways.
I don't think anyone does. It's not suggested this will be sold for private use, though, although the idea of anyone having control over this sort of tech is bad enough. IMO this is the sort of thing that should be banned under human rights / anti-torture law.
I don't think it falls under human right/torture stuff, but it should be illegal. Its not safe. It's reckless.
In a situation where hunting is necessary for survival purpose, I guess it would be fair to exempt hunting rifles. Not semi-autos, handguns, etc of course.
I don't like the idea that something that is unnecessary for survival is somehow useless. Many people get pleasure from guns in one form or another, and although I don't like gun crime, I am not willing to take away these people's freedom in order to get little security.
Poison & traps are usable. Note also that I said you could make an exception for culling or pest control... obviously such scenarios would need to be strictly controlled, regulated and quota-d.
There's a ****load of situations where poison and traps are not usable. They are also indiscriminate and often pretty cruel methods. Gun is, by far, the best choice for most of the anti-pest situations (when dealing with anything bigger than a rat).
The act of hunting can, as you said, be simulated by binoculars, camera, or even by subsituting a 'fake' gun that calculates 'kills' (in a far-out substitute). Hunting for the sake of killing (for fun), IMO isn't really something that adds a lot to the fabric of society... I don't think we lose much if that goes as a consequence.
I don't think you really understand the situation. Hunting is one of the oldest and holiest rights we have up here in the north. Example: We like moose meat, and we don't like moose vs. car situations. We also like our livestock, and our tree farms, and stuff like that. This ties into later part. I find it somehow strange that you are ready to limit what majority of people likes in order to get some little security.
See before (RE: where necessary for pest control / culling).
Well, the suicide issue is another arguement, but the other side is ambiguity over how much more likely a gun makes it, and I'm not sure what studies, etc, have been made into that.
dunno either
One of the other things I said about guns, is supply; how many legally purchased guns are stolen, for example? Or how many guns are shipped in as legal weapons, but end up re-routed to illegal sellers? i.e. how many illegal guns are actually moved into the (i.e. whatever country) illegally, and how many originate with legitamate sources?
Most illegal guns are guns that have been legal, but have lost licence - but the owner(s) don't give a ****, or are stolen property which just circulates around. Pistols and other handguns, in here, are pretty much that. Pistols around here are pretty hard to get, but they are still one of the most used gun types in robberies etc. Most of the guns are 1960s-1970s era, when handguns were much easier to get - the legacy of such era is not easily wiped out.
I tried to find info about gunshop robberies, but it's more difficult than what I thought.
I believe that eradicating guns outright (including moving all that licensing budget into the police to tackle illegal weapons) is a better long term solution than strict licensing, due to the inevitability that somewhere along the line, licensing will fail.
How many instances are too much, and do you limit this method only to firearms?
Also that and more guns available in shops = more from ne'er-do-wells to obtain (be it purchase or stealing from owner/shop/enroute to shop).
Hmph. Much of bad stuff is readily legally available. It's not like we have these gun shops in every corner with expontentially increasing sales. One reason is goddamn tight regulation.
I don't believe this counts as nanny-statery, any more than seatbelt laws or child-safety caps on bottles do.
Banana is a fruit but is not as is orange and an apple
Seatbelt laws are what they are, because the driver is essentially responsible for the lives of the passengers, and a rogue passenger (lol) is a threat to driver and other passengers. Child-safety caps on bottles are because kids are dumb.
I don't think hunting itself is an environmental use. I'm not sure how beneficial said hobbies are; what gun-related hobbies are there, besides hunting, anyways? (presumably target shooting doesn't count - you can do that with an airgun or paintball gun).
If beneficy is only reason, then I would go ahead and say abolish art and restaurants as well, because they're useless and I heard someone cutted his ear off while painting.
Pest control, culling, etc, are pretty much a state rather than private persons responsibility (simple reason - one person has less information on the scale of a pest or population problem and individuals acting in an uncoordinated manner rarely solve one), so that isn't IMO a factor in the issue of private ownership.
State has to use private people in these circumstances, because the cost of training 100 000 people with knowledge of local area and idea how to use guns on what and so on is pretty enormous. Local hunting clubs and organizations are, with local birdwatcher associatons, THE tool to use when making different studies, mink control programs and so on.
Wandering... I have no idea what you mean by that. Sorry. [/B][/quote]
-
That microwave beam is bloody scary! Microwaves cause the water molecules in your skin to vibrate, which is what heats it up, but they are still very very suspect in the Brain Damage department.
As for guns, well, I have a couple of guns, admittedly air pistols, in my house, though not loaded. I've fortunately never had to use them, but considering the level of help I can expect from the Police these days, I can only hope that I will never have to.
Edit : Oh, and as for hunting, a Bow or Crossbow is incredibly efficient at taking out large game. How do you think people hunted and ate before guns were invented. If anything, the silence of Bows makes them a more effective hunting weapon.
-
Originally posted by Janos
First axes were also used to kill. Not that that comment really means anything, but anyways.
At the dawn of civillisation, though; nowadays that's not their primary purpose, and they have other uses.
Originally posted by Janos
I don't think it falls under human right/torture stuff, but it should be illegal. Its not safe. It's reckless.
I don't know. IMO it would - or should - be considered in the same way as electroshock.
Originally posted by Janos
I don't like the idea that something that is unnecessary for survival is somehow useless. Many people get pleasure from guns in one form or another, and although I don't like gun crime, I am not willing to take away these people's freedom in order to get little security.
Useless? No - as you said, shooting stuff can be fun for some.
But it has to be weighed against the risk. IMO the risk and effect of no ban is greater than any 'loss' incurred by a ban.
Originally posted by Janos
There's a ****load of situations where poison and traps are not usable. They are also indiscriminate and often pretty cruel methods. Gun is, by far, the best choice for most of the anti-pest situations (when dealing with anything bigger than a rat).
I'm not sure about that. I'm sure there are equally reliable and humane methods of killing pests. If not, then there's the issue of governmentally regulated pest control with tightly controlled firearms.
Originally posted by Janos
I don't think you really understand the situation. Hunting is one of the oldest and holiest rights we have up here in the north. Example: We like moose meat, and we don't like moose vs. car situations. We also like our livestock, and our tree farms, and stuff like that. This ties into later part. I find it somehow strange that you are ready to limit what majority of people likes in order to get some little security.
For me, likes < security, and certainly on a national scale. I'm not sure if moose / car situations matters, though - can't blame the moose for being thick.
Originally posted by Janos
Most illegal guns are guns that have been legal, but have lost licence - but the owner(s) don't give a ****, or are stolen property which just circulates around. Pistols and other handguns, in here, are pretty much that. Pistols around here are pretty hard to get, but they are still one of the most used gun types in robberies etc. Most of the guns are 1960s-1970s era, when handguns were much easier to get - the legacy of such era is not easily wiped out.
But any gun that's legally owned can still become illegally held by another, yes? Even through no fault of the license holder (i.e. if stolen).
Originally posted by Janos
How many instances are too much, and do you limit this method only to firearms?
Any instances.
Obviously impossible to remove all crime without removing all freedoms, but I don't believe the right to own a gun is an essential or necessary 'freedom' for society when weighed against the dangers.
Originally posted by Janos
Hmph. Much of bad stuff is readily legally available. It's not like we have these gun shops in every corner with expontentially increasing sales. One reason is goddamn tight regulation.
But there is still going to be an amount of legally imported guns transported in, yes? Which are vulnerable to abuse.
Originally posted by Janos
Banana is a fruit but is not as is orange and an apple
Seatbelt laws are what they are, because the driver is essentially responsible for the lives of the passengers, and a rogue passenger (lol) is a threat to driver and other passengers. Child-safety caps on bottles are because kids are dumb.
And gun control is because people are dumb, and can become dumb very quickly. It's a more extreme issue than the 2 examples, in fact - cars and medicine / cleaning /etc bottles are used for some important purpose. Guns are only good for killing or crippling stuff.
Originally posted by Janos
If beneficy is only reason, then I would go ahead and say abolish art and restaurants as well, because they're useless and I heard someone cutted his ear off while painting.
Strong arguemnets can be made for the cultural importance of art (specifically the conveying of heritage, expression of ideas and educational value, etc). Art itself is not a weapon whose purpose is to injure/kill; if you want to make a Van Gogh comparison, it'd be relating to knives, not art.
Restaurants... are a service industry, which can be said to reinforce cultural identity through national dishes, etc, and be beneficial in terms of recreational use - but resteraunts themselves don't have a primary purpose of causing damage to living tissue (except Happy Chefs...)
Again, it's a balance of risk vs benefit. In both cases, I don't think there's exactly a huge risk from art or restaurants. With guns, however, I believe there is.
Originally posted by Janos
State has to use private people in these circumstances, because the cost of training 100 000 people with knowledge of local area and idea how to use guns on what and so on is pretty enormous. Local hunting clubs and organizations are, with local birdwatcher associatons, THE tool to use when making different studies, mink control programs and so on.
Then they recruit & train locals; or if hunting is so pleasurable, the locals volunteer for it. There needn't even be a difference from the current situation, except that the government hands out and takes back the guns after each cull, and each bullet/kill is counted.
(I think this may be pretty much the way that it works in the Highlands, actually)
But you don't just let individuals or local groups decide that a population needs culling, do you? Because for all you know, the next bunch down the road have decided the same thing.... or maybe they've discovered a surprisingly reduced population due to previous studies miscounts....
-
You guys lost me way back on the previous page, but I just wanted to toss in the inevitable (and absolutely true) line:
"Guns don't kill people, _______________."
:D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Useless? No - as you said, shooting stuff can be fun for some.
If those guys don't represent a real threat - when compared to some countries where guns are frequently used by 12-old street kids - then why should we limit their personal life because of a hypothetical threat?
But it has to be weighed against the risk. IMO the risk and effect of no ban is greater than any 'loss' incurred by a ban.
IMO no, at least when we're talking about really marginal problems. US problems are different, but using US problems to promote a universal weapons ban is pretty weird.
I'm not sure about that. I'm sure there are equally reliable and humane methods of killing pests. If not, then there's the issue of governmentally regulated pest control with tightly controlled firearms.
There aren't, or they aren't cost-effective. Governmentally regulated pest control - it's kinda regulated here - would take a ****load of money and human resources. Costs and benefits.
For me, likes < security, and certainly on a national scale. I'm not sure if moose / car situations matters, though - can't blame the moose for being thick.
It does. For me, freedom > security until certain point. You know that old saying about that, don't you? :D
But any gun that's legally owned can still become illegally held by another, yes? Even through no fault of the license holder (i.e. if stolen).
Yes.
Any instances.
Oh ok. :wtf: Should everything be 100% safe? I mean I have this fork right now.
Obviously impossible to remove all crime without removing all freedoms, but I don't believe the right to own a gun is an essential or necessary 'freedom' for society when weighed against the dangers.
Different societies have different needs. Where I live the automatic weapons have never been illegal or extremely strictly controlled for known history. The upsides of some guys in a distant village owning a gun and knowing to use it are, here!, far more weighing than the 30 lives we could otherwise save.
But there is still going to be an amount of legally imported guns transported in, yes? Which are vulnerable to abuse.
As vulnerable as those already in the country, actually even less due to strict regulation. Most of the illegal weaponry is usually smuggled/really old stuff.
And gun control is because people are dumb, and can become dumb very quickly. It's a more extreme issue than the 2 examples, in fact - cars and medicine / cleaning /etc bottles are used for some important purpose. Guns are only good for killing or crippling stuff.
And killing is sometimes fun, and sometimes important, and even though it's not a basic human necessity and must-have, it's considered a valuable freedom nonetheless.
Strong arguemnets can be made for the cultural importance of art (specifically the conveying of heritage, expression of ideas and educational value, etc). Art itself is not a weapon whose purpose is to injure/kill; if you want to make a Van Gogh comparison, it'd be relating to knives, not art.
Restaurants... are a service industry, which can be said to reinforce cultural identity through national dishes, etc, and be beneficial in terms of recreational use - but resteraunts themselves don't have a primary purpose of causing damage to living tissue (except Happy Chefs...)
Again, it's a balance of risk vs benefit. In both cases, I don't think there's exactly a huge risk from art or restaurants. With guns, however, I believe there is.
Art shows us men raping cats. Restaurants then cook said cats in used unhealthy fat, while reguraly working in grey economy. /stupid derail
Then they recruit & train locals; or if hunting is so pleasurable, the locals volunteer for it. There needn't even be a difference from the current situation, except that the government hands out and takes back the guns after each cull, and each bullet/kill is counted.
I would love to see you somehow implement this magnificent idea round pretty much anywhere, because we're just drowning on money and human resources as are most governments who are ready to cut back on healthcare and military in order to save their native fauna.
(I think this may be pretty much the way that it works in the Highlands, actually)
But you don't just let individuals or local groups decide that a population needs culling, do you? Because for all you know, the next bunch down the road have decided the same thing.... or maybe they've discovered a surprisingly reduced population due to previous studies miscounts.... [/B]
Of course not. However, these local groups often have pretty much knowledge which is pretty vital in such matters.
-
Originally posted by Janos
If those guys don't represent a real threat - when compared to some countries where guns are frequently used by 12-old street kids - then why should we limit their personal life because of a hypothetical threat?
It's not 'these guys' that are important, it is the guns. Who owns the gun, isn't the point. What the gun might be use for, is.
Originally posted by Janos
IMO no, at least when we're talking about really marginal problems. US problems are different, but using US problems to promote a universal weapons ban is pretty weird.
Why? I'm advocating it based on the decisions my country made, when there wasn't a recognised problem until *bang* Hungerford and *bang* Dunblane.
So we banned assault weapons (Hungerford involved an Ak-47), and then guns themselves.
Originally posted by Janos
There aren't, or they aren't cost-effective. Governmentally regulated pest control - it's kinda regulated here - would take a ****load of money and human resources. Costs and benefits.
Pest control requiring guns? What kind of pests do you have over there, exactly?
Originally posted by Janos
It does. For me, freedom > security until certain point. You know that old saying about that, don't you? :D
I believe that point is met when civvies have lethal weapons.
Originally posted by Janos
Oh ok. :wtf: Should everything be 100% safe? I mean I have this fork right now.
Most forks aren't designed to kill.
Originally posted by Janos
Different societies have different needs. Where I live the automatic weapons have never been illegal or extremely strictly controlled for known history. The upsides of some guys in a distant village owning a gun and knowing to use it are, here!, far more weighing than the 30 lives we could otherwise save.
I would say those 30 lives are more important. I would say one of those 30 lives is vastly more important.
Originally posted by Janos
As vulnerable as those already in the country, actually even less due to strict regulation. Most of the illegal weaponry is usually smuggled/really old stuff.
And step 2 of any ban is naturally to invest the money usually spend on gun licensing to work on stopping gun smuggling. Tackling both sources of criminal weaponry, in other words
Originally posted by Janos
And killing is sometimes fun, and sometimes important, and even though it's not a basic human necessity and must-have, it's considered a valuable freedom nonetheless.
Valuable? :doubt:
Originally posted by Janos
Art shows us men raping cats. Restaurants then cook said cats in used unhealthy fat, while reguraly working in grey economy. /stupid derail
...um....
Originally posted by Janos
I would love to see you somehow implement this magnificent idea round pretty much anywhere, because we're just drowning on money and human resources as are most governments who are ready to cut back on healthcare and military in order to save their native fauna.
Can't be any more intensive than a strong licensing scheme, IMO.
Originally posted by Janos
Of course not. However, these local groups often have pretty much knowledge which is pretty vital in such matters.
But to perform an effective role, they will require co-ordination and control. Hence, government regulation would probably be the best way to ensure national control.
-
We should do a Quoteathon to raise money for needy people ;)
-
[SIZE=14]MMMMMMMMMMMULTI-QUOTE![/SIZE]
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
"Guns don't kill people, _______________."
:D
"Until they are used"
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You guys lost me way back on the previous page, but I just wanted to toss in the inevitable (and absolutely true) line:
"Guns don't kill people, _______________."
:D
Wappers Do!
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
"Guns don't kill people, _______________."
Bullets do? :nervous:
-
Or more to the point, massive trauma caused by a bullet entry and exit wound.
-
In retrospect, these school shootings are not too surprising.
-
They were a pretty big shock for the kids... :nervous:
-
*sighs, fills in obigatory answer*
"people kill people."
-
Pfft, we all know it was GTA: San Andreas, Marilyn Manson and Violent movies fault anyway, why worry about the guns.
Personally, I just wish they'd choose a scapegoat (musically) that wasn't that tosser manson, I hate people thinking all people into metal like that ****e.
-
Yeah, but think about it. The system right now is to force a bunch of people to go to school, whether they want to or not.. If they really don't want to go, it's probably not going to make much of a difference whether they're there or not. It may or may not be beneficial to them, and they may or may not know that, but most importantly they're being FORCED to go to class, with no other reason other than it's the law.
How would any adult respond if they started having the same restrictions put on them? To spend six or seven hours a day in a room with thirty other people or so, having assignments handed to them that are effectively worthless - except for their educational value. If they're thirty seconds late for a few days, they get punished. They don't receive anything for being there (although the school might). I've heard it said that everything's a learning experience - some things just aren't worth it to learn.
Of course, that's not to mention the hours of homework they'll be receiving. Nope, no rest at home.
There are two ways to do well in school. 1) Miraculously be exactly the type of person who works well in that system or 2) conform. Considering the diversity of people, one is unlikely. That leaves two. And now the school's forcing people to change themselves for...what? Not learning. School isn't about learning, or else it wouldn't be mandatory - people would want to go! What way do people have to get their grievances addressed? Absolutely no way at all, unless they can enlist the help of an adult. Because they are, in the eyes of the law, considered inherently inferior to every single last person over the age of 18.
Considering all that, it really isn't all surprising that some of those subhumans blow up and lose control.
-
Manson is a strange person, but a surprisingly intelligent one when I saw an interview with him.
That said, I don't like him musically, and he looks..... Micheal Jackson, but fortunately he doesn't give the impression of thinking Micheal Jackson ;)
-
Sorry, had to reply to WMCoolman's post there.....
Thing is, adults are, if they want any quality of life, forced to work and obey the company rules and policies. The guy that forces you to go to school... Don't you think he'd rather be in Bermuda supping down a Pina Colada? ;)
I can't speak for the discipline in your school, but a certain expression of Freedom is important. I suppose where I work, I draw the line when that Freedom to Express becomes a disruption to other student's Freedom to Peace and Quiet, as it were ;)
Personally, I think they pick precisesly the wrong time to get kids to do the most important exams of their life. Right in the middle of Puberty, where your Future is the least of your concerns. I think children should be starting to learn languages and humanities at around the age of 5-6 years old, younger if possible.
-
The kid was a neonazi anyway...
-
Well, I don't think it's what he believed that is really the issue, so much as why he believed that. He could have just been a complete nutcase, but if that's the case, why wasn't he identified and dealt with before this happened? It could have been home issues, but once again, the impetus has been lumped on schools to identify and deal with that.
If you ask me, the danger here is the moving of repsonsiblity for children from the parents to the state. Parents will imply stricter morals on a Child than a State will, they won't be so hung up on 'Freedom' and a lot more on 'What Mrs Gable at 34 will say'.
Is that a bad thing? Who's to say. I suppose if the state were to withdraw, and simply supports and ensures Freedom is upheld, and allow the Public more control over it's own society-driven form of ethics, but if people want to rebel against it, it doesn't suddenly fall on the School or the State's shoulders.
-
first time i've seen this many quotes in one single thread
-
Not true. Once you turn 18, you can go ahead and live in a cardboard box if you want to. If you're lucky, it can even be bechfront property - although you may be limited by beach hours (And the wherabouts of dumpsters ;) ). You do gain something out of work - the money you earn.
Here's the thing - at 18, there is no magical change in brain chemistry that happens as you blow the candles out on your birthday cake. The concept of independence and self-sovereignty may seem much more real then, but likely you'll still be able to understand them before that.
If someone's dream job since the age of 12 is to be a stock marketeer, and the school requires two semesters of a drama class, which they have absolutely no talent in, for those two semesters they'll have to go to that drama class. The best they could do is try to cut a deal with the school administration. If the university they want to go to requires two semesters of drama for economics majors, then they can choose not to go to it - although they'll either have to give up their dream job or find some other way of achieving it.
-
It's interesting to see it from the 'other side', I can't give an example for the US, but I come up against this quite a lot at work ;)
My situation is a little different, since I work for a Training Provider, which does Apprenticeships, and tends to mostly get people who have not done as well at school as they hoped.
However, it's an interesting fact to note that in the last 3 months, the company I work for has paid out over £80,000 in computer Hardware, software, paper, pens, books, Exam fees, College registrations, wages, Salon maintenance fees etc etc etc.
I suppose the 'Adult' in me would say that the Education is your payment. Though, I am still young enough to know that would fall on deaf ears if I were 18.
As I say, the pick they one time of your life when you least want to conform, when you most want to express your originality, and believe me, it doesn't stop at 18, but your 'comfiness' with who you are increases, with any luck, so it's not so important to shout it from the roof ;)
As far as doing Drama for Economics, I've never understood that kind of thing. My brother is the best Mental Arithmetist I know, and he's Dyslexic, so he'll never get the English qualification he'd need to do a job in accounts :wtf:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm not sure about that 2 seconds part; at least by the (pre-ban) Uk standards, where you had to keep guns in a metal locked safe.
Let´s not split hairs here. I´m not talking of a 5 inch wall safe, made of titanium alloy, with 3 sets of number wheels, complete with minefield, infra-red cameras and guard dogs. I´m talking about keeping your handgun inside a locked drawer, in your night stand, next to your bed. How long does it take to insert key, turn, open, and go balistic?
The same goes for long guns. Keep then inside your closet. How long does it take to get it? Get up, walk to the closet, insert key, turn, open, and go balistic. Even if you don´t keep it locked, you still have to perform most of these actions to reach it anyway...
Note that i think the UK laws are a bit overdrive. Unless you own several guns, there is no reason to keep so many safeguards, that would completelly nullify the purpose of self-defense. But if you own several weapons, then yes. Keep all of them but one under strict lock, and keep your handgun closer at hand. But still under locked key, mind you. Just not inside a home made Fort Knox.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Note that i think the UK laws are a bit overdrive.
Dont you think that's a bit of an understatement? For christs sake, in the UK, an armed robber can raid your house, and hold you hostage. But if the said robber lets his guard down for some reason (distracted or something), and you attack him with a baseball bat to disable him, then call the cops, he can sue you for everything you're worth.
To fix your statement, "Note that the UK laws are downright ****ed up."
-
They have said you can use 'reasonable force' so those stupid burglar suing householder cases are going to go away. What you must NOT do, is shoot them in the back when they are running away...
-
... and in total, IIRc, there have only been about 6 prosecutions in the last decade+ for that. It's extraordinarily rare.
@Swampy
It's a moot point, because all gun ownership is illegal - IIRc you can only own under .22 weapons, and they must be kept at a registered gun club with security. But, we don't need guns at home, really.... gun crime is really rare in Scotland in particular, and I can't remember ever hearing of a guns use in a 'casual' crime (robbery, mugging) since they were banned (only in a very few isolated incidents, mostly gangland killings or 'hits').
Having checked up, in fact, it dropped by half in 1992-2002 (guns were banned in 1997), and by something like 9% alone in 2000-2002 (probably more relevant RE: the ban). So it's certainly not 'hurt' by banning weapons.
Incidentally, there's now a growing groundswell of opinion to further restrict or even ban the ownership of airguns after the death of a 2 year old shot with one.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
.
Incidentally, there's now a growing groundswell of opinion to further restrict or even ban the ownership of airguns after the death of a 2 year old shot with one.
uhhh
That's not really nice. The death is sad, but the fact that even they should be banned is really weird. Slippery slope indeed.
-
Originally posted by Janos
uhhh
That's not really nice. The death is sad, but the fact that even they should be banned is really weird. Slippery slope indeed.
Well, there's almost definately going to be a tightening of restrictions & increasing of age limits if not a total ban; the reason is that an increasing number of emergency workers are finding themselves being attacked by them (and sometimes being drawn out on false alarm calls for that purpose*). The police have called for a ban, though.
Links;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4319149.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4322109.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4374777.stm
*Scotlands not a bad country or an urban wasteland or anything like that - but we're the same as everyone else, we have a bunch of right scum who do stuff like this.